Skip to content

GlobalLawDBby GenieAI

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Search the text of the law

Log in Get an API key

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Log in Get an API key

The Global Law Database. Free to read, built for people and AI agents.

Explore

All laws
Search the text
Sanctions
Map of connections
Compare UK and EU

Developers

AI agents (MCP)
REST API
Bulk data
API keys

Coverage

United Kingdom
European Union
United States
Canada
Australia
France
Germany
Netherlands
Spain
Austria
Norway
Finland
Switzerland
Ireland

GlobalLawDB is made by GenieAI, London. It is not legal advice: check the official text before relying on it. Text comes from official publishers under their licences, listed on the Data page.

ThemeMatch my systemLightDark

European Union
Messe München GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-32/00)
Judgment
Law
The main claim
Findings of the Court
47

Messe München GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-32/00)

Judgment of 5 Dec 2000law://eu/cjeu/2000/t-32-00/para_47@2026-11-10

47The Community trade mark regime is an autonomous system with its own set of objectives and rules peculiar to it; it is self-sufficient and applies independently of any national system.

Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.

Key facts

Court: General Court · Fourth Chamber
Case: T-32/00 · ECLI:EU:T:2000:283
Decided: 5 Dec 2000
Procedure: Action for annulment
Applicant: Messe München GmbH
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
Rapporteur: Moura Ramos
Bench: 2 judges
R.M. Moura Ramos, P. Mengozzi
Language: German
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62000TJ0032

Topics

History · 1 version

5 Dec 2000Reading

Connections

Cited by 24: Blue Underwriting Agency Srl v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-447/23); Coinbase, Inc. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-304/23); Jose A. Alfonso Arpon SL v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-357/21); Republic of Cyprus v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-593/19); Square, Inc. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-210/20); Republic of Cyprus v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-281/19); Apologistics GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-844/19); Global Brand Holdings, LLC v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-503/19); Gruppo Armonie SpA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-88/18); Perfect Bar LLC v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-759/17); Perfect Bar LLC v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-758/17); Lincoln Global, Inc. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-736/17); Carbon System Verwaltungs GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-825/17); Republic of Cyprus v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-384/17); Republic of Cyprus v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-825/16)2 provisions; Republic of Cyprus v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-847/16); Laboratoires Majorelle v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-429/17); Hochmann Marketing GmbH, formerly Bittorrent Marketing GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-771/15); For Tune sp. z o.o. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-815/16); Nanogate AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-767/16); Kuka Systems GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-87/17); Kuka Systems GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-683/16); Windfinder R&L GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-395/16); Massive Bionics, SL v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-223/16)
Cites 4: Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark; Procter & Gamble v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-163/98); DKV Deutsche Krankenversicherung AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-19/99); Procter & Gamble v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-122/99)